Ramsay-Nobles v. Keyser et al
| Julia Ramsay-Nobles |
| William Keyser, Edward Burnett, Bruce Tucker, Steven Witte, Senior Sullivan Officers, Sullivan Correction Officers and Shane Topel |
| 1:2016cv05778 |
| July 20, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Colleen McMahon |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
406
ORDER DISALLOWING WRIT OF PRODUCTION: Williams' deposition testimony was read into the record yesterday morning - both the Plaintiffs designations and the Supervisor Defendants' cross-designations. The decision whether to issue a writ to br ing in a prisoner to testify for trial is committed to the sound discretion of the court. In an exercise of my discretion I allowed the deposition testimony to be read. As far as the court is concerned, the application to writ Williams in is now moot . I note for the record that Williams does not appear on the witness list of the Corrections Officers; he was scheduled to testify only on the Plaintiff's case. The court had ruled that he could testify by deposition. Since counsel for the Corre ctions Officer Defendants did not see fit to alert chambers by phone or fax to their last-second application for a writ - in effect, for reconsideration of a ruling already made by the court - the court had no ability to deal with the application la st Friday afternoon, when it was made. By the time I was aware of the application it was too late to writ the witness, as Plaintiff was scheduled to rest, and did rest that very day. The Officer Defendants suffer no prejudice as a result. Defendants never indicated an interest in calling Williams on their case (and indeed, their opportunity to list him as a witness on their case expired long ago). The jury has now heard Williams' testimony - together with the Supervisor Defendants' cr oss-designations, which were read to the jury along with the deposition testimony that was offered by Plaintiff. The Officer Defendants had plenty of opportunity to cross examine Williams during his examination, and to offer cross-designations as wel l. Writting Williams in now so that he can say again what the jury has already heard would be purely duplicative. There is simply no reason to do it - it certainly would not "substantially further the resolution of the case," which is one o f the factors to be considered when deciding whether to grant or deny a writ to bring in a prisoner from a distant facility. 28 U.S.C. § 2241; In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48401, at* 17 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014). A nd the disruption to a trial that writing in Williams would have caused would have been ill advised. The trial is running long; it will inevitably go into a third week. Plaintiffs counsel made a good faith effort to get Williams into the district at a time when it was feasible to do so. I do not fault Plaintiff for not seeking a new writ given the last minute, mid-trial nature of the information that Williams was back in custody. The application for a writ is disallowed. The Clerk should remove Docket #402 from the court's list of open motions if it in fact appears thereon. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/19/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
401
DECISION ON THE SUPERVISOR DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR OFFICER JEFFREY HUNT: The Court having reviewed the Supervisor Defendants' objections to the Plaintiffs deposition designations for Off icer Jeffrey Hunt and Plaintiffs responses thereto (Dkt. No. 391), the Supervisor Defendants' objections to the following designations are OVERRULED: 6:3-9, 66:24-68:1, 85:2-86:16, 89:1-24, 179:2-181:16, 185:9-13, 199:4-8, 199:24-200:5, 200:13-16, 201:5-208:18: for the limited purpose of the fact that these conversations took place. The jury will be instructed accordingly. 209:15-20, 210:1-16, 225:3-226:1, 226:5-15: through "heart attack" The Supervisor Defendants� 39; objections to the following designations are SUSTAINED: 66:10-19, 86:17-25, 89:25-90:7, 181:17-182:18, 182:19-22, 199:4-8, 200:17-201:4, 209:21-25, 226:2-4, 226: 15 - starting with "And she says" - through 226:16. I cannot rule on designation 84:14-22 as this question refers to an email that I do not have. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/13/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
400
ORDER ADMITTING PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL TRIAL EXHIBITS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following exhibits are admitted: PTX-6, PTX-239A, PTX-239B, PTX-269, PTX-277, PTX-279, PTX-287 (as redacted), PTX-293A, PTX-293B, PTX-293C, PTX-293D, PTX-293E, PTX-410, PTX-414. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/12/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
399
DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE: 1. Dr. Alexander Bardey will not be permitted to testify for the defense, for the reasons set out in the Plaintiff's Bench Memorandum (which is not a bench memorandum - those are prepared by my la w clerks - but rather, a brief in support of a motion to preclude his testimony, which is an outstanding in limine issue). Dr. Bardey has absolutely no basis to testify about what Plaintiff's decedent - whom he has never met - would have perc eived on the morning he died. Treating physician testimony and information from his prison medical records, not the suppositions of a purported expert who has never seen Karl Taylor, will be sufficient to establish that he suffered from mental illne ss; defendants are free to ask the jury to devalue the life of a person with mental disabilities, and we will see how kindly the jury takes to that argument. 2. I will rule on the objections to the deposition testimony of Officer Hunt at some point b efore he takes the stand, but I can tell you right now that most of these objections appear to be meritless. However, dues to Judge Batts' death and the preparations for her funeral, I cannot immerse myself in Officer Hunt's testimony today or Monday. 3. Dr. Christensen will not be permitted to testify about his views on which witnesses are telling the truth, or whose testimony should be believed when there is a dispute. Any effort to introduce such testimony will be met with most vigorous intervention by the court. I will be listening with extra care to Dr. Christensen. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/7/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
387
ORDER: The Court having convened the final pretrial conference and heard the parties' objections to the exhibits in dispute, the following exhibits are admitted, as further set forth. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/27/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
384
DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE re: 349 THIRD MOTION in Limine to Exclude Post-Incident Evidence of or Reference to Corrections Officers' Injuries filed by Julia Ramsay-Nobles, 346 SECOND MOTION in Limine < i> to Exclude Evidence of or Reference to the Inmate Witnesses' Criminal Convictions or Prison Disciplinary Records filed by Julia Ramsay-Nobles, 351 FOURTH MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of or Reference to Grand Jury Proc eedings filed by Julia Ramsay-Nobles, 343 FIRST MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of or Reference to Karl Taylor's Criminal Convictions or Prison Disciplinary History filed by Julia Ramsay-Nobles, 353 FIFTH MOTION i n Limine to Exclude Evidence of and Reference to Factual Findings and Conclusions of Investigative Reports filed by Julia Ramsay-Nobles. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. It is a written opinion. The Clerk is directed to remove the following motions from the court's list of open motions: Docket ## 343, 346, 349, 351, and 353. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/22/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
341
ORDER SEVERING CLAIM AGAINST DR. LEE. the medical malpractice claim against Dr. Lee (Count Six) is severed for separate trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). This ruling preserves Plaintiff's right to take an appeal from the dismissal of her federal claim (and from this court's ruling that Dr. Lee cannot be held to have proximately caused the death of her brother); after the resolution of the malpractice claim (assuming it cannot be settled), she will be able to take an appeal from any and all of this court's orders that aggrieve her. The case against the Defendants other than Dr. Lee will be tried first. The court's deputy clerk will contact the parties in the next few weeks with a firm trial date (which will be in early 2020) and a pre-trial schedule. This constitutes the written opinion and order of the court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/12/2019) (rjm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
